Friday, December 19, 2014

Evaluating the Evangelists: Billy Graham

From the November 2011 E-Block.***Evangelist Billy Graham is one of the most
trusted figures in the world, and I am pleased to say that after
surveying a sampling of his works below, I believe that trust is
justified:

Ask Billy Graham (ABG)

Facing Death and the Life After (FDL)

The Key to Personal Peace (KPP)

Angels (A)

Answers to Life's Questions (ALQ)

What differentiates Graham from so many other popular Christian
authors -- Joyce Meyer, Max Lucado, and so on -- is an overlay of
cautionary humility that prevents Graham from (for the most part)
overextending himself. (I know few people who, like Graham, will say
that they do not like to be called "doctor" when what they have is an
honorary degree -- ABG95). He does not allow excitement and emotion to
let him say more than is warranted: For example, in A, he reports
anecdotes of angelic interference in the world, but does so with a
cautionary tone and occasional acknowledgments that he cannot
absolutely vouch for a supernatural element, only suggesting that there
may be one.

By his own account he consults others when his own expertise is
not sufficient, and is also willing to change his views when more and
better information comes to his attention. To that extent, I would say
that Graham's works are overall good choices for a new Christian.

Is there an "on the other hand"? Yes, but I don't think Graham is
to be blamed for it. As a trusted leader, Graham has either been called
upon -- or felt a call -- to write many books on subjects that one
would not ordinarily expect an evangelist to write about. His book on
death (FDL) is mostly common sense advice and commentary on
death-related issues (euthanasia, wills, etc). But why should Graham
have written such a book, and why would anyone read it, rather than a
book by, saying, an attorney specializing in such matters? And in
ABG819, why would anyone write to Graham asking for his views on public
debt? One can only suppose that it is precisely because Graham has a
sterling reputation of trust -- for that reason, he becomes like a
trusted father figure to whom one may turn for any perceived need.

On that account, it is on the one hand a very good thing that
Graham does not overextend himself. Indeed, in ALQ, we see him
frequently telling readers to seek someone qualified to counsel them.
This leaves me with only two significant reservations.

First, Graham also sometimes tries to segue some concern into an
evangelistic message; the artificiality of his appeal is too often
transparent, and may do more harm than good. In ALQ240-1, for example,
he has a question from a reader about organ donation, which, after his
answer, he turns into a reminder that Jesus gave the gift of life
through the cross. That seems rather too much of a stretch. But such
"stretchy" instances are rare that I found.

(In this respect, I am reminded as well of Franklin Graham, who
during CNN interview answered every question by appending the same rote
mini-sermon each time. I also reminded of a Wittenburg Door parody I
once saw, titled "Dear Abbott," in which an advice columnist did the
same thing to every letter. I now know that ALQ, a compilation of
Graham's answers to readers in what was apparently an Ann Landers style
column, is what they were parodying!)

The second reservation is more serious. Although Graham indeed
does wisely not overextend himself, he has been put into an awkward
position in which people expect him to have answers he does not have.
Graham indicates, for example, that he won't get into issues like the
reliability of the Bible; he gets results by just saying, "the Bible
says" (ABG481) . He also refuses to discuss theological issues like
inerrancy (ABG105). Now this is not problematic in itself; Graham is an
evangelist, and explaining such things is not his job. However, he has
been put in an awkward position in which he will be expected to give
answers to a wide array of such questions, which end up being
inadequate. For example:

KPP: In this he does well to emphasize the essential historicity of
the Resurrection; but he has one of his rare overextensions and says
that there is more evidence for it than there is for Alexander the
Great dying at age at 33! In a sense I agree, but to make such a
statement requires much more than a few sentences of affirmation.

ALQ103: Asked about Sabbath observance, Graham offers sound --
but vague -- warnings against legalism, then advises the reader to make
up their own mind to honor God as they think should be done.

ALQ108-9: Graham is asked about a religious group that came to
someone's door (it is not specified what group), and his advice is to
ask: What does this group think of the Bible, Christ, and salvation? Do
they have books or Bible translations not recommended by scholars?
That's actually spot on advice, but it comes at the end of what should
be a much longer string of argumentation. (It would have been sufficient
had he offered at least a short list for further reading.)

ALQ284: Asked if Jesus claimed to be God, Graham, offers only 3 passages from John's Gospel, with no explanation.

Beyond this, Graham's attitude towards scholarship is, thankfully,
overall positive. He indicates that he wishes his education had been
more complete at times. On the one hand, though he says (ALQ291) in
response to a request for a book or commentary to explain the Bible that
the Bible "is its own best commentary," he also (294) says that some
Biblical scholarship has helped in understanding the Bible better. We
may be thankful that Graham was at least somewhat positive in this
regard rather than sharing the offer of many modern writers towards
scholarship.

In sum: It is a pleasure to offer an overall positive assessment
of Billy Graham as an author, one who handles his material, in general,
responsibly.